Search results

...server (1.4.99) which brings a large number of benefits to users and a new ABI as described in the [[Releases/9/FeatureList | feature list]]. ...from some vendors (AMD (fglrx)) are not yet compatible with this new X.Org ABI. (nVidia has also taken their time, but as of May 28, 2008, an updated driv

...(abi)</code> requirement will be adapted to generate <code>platform-python(abi)</code> requirement for that location ...de> will provide <code>platform-python(abi)</code> instead of <code>python(abi)</code>

* Determine if all objects implement the same ABI (e.g., they agree upon the format of <code>long double</code>). This would ** Which (architecture specific) ABI variant is in use in object X and is it compatible with object Y ?

...ing: No action from release engineering is needed for this change (libcurl ABI is kept), releng review requested at https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7193

<li><blockquote><p>External module api/abi definition and consumption — contyk, sct</p></blockquote></li></ul>

...es are automatically disabled in the test suite and removed from reference ABI lists, and it's not immediately apparent that feature is gone. Therefore, s ...with its parameter save area), although it comes very close to an implicit ABI break.

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...rc3 that we force us to patch LLVM to maintain compatibility with the -rc2 ABI. This scenario would not require rebuilding LLVM library uses in Fedora, s

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...ARMv5tel (in the 'arm' directory) and ARMv7hl (in the 'armhfp' directory) ABI formats at the following location:

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...e the actual release, so careful attention must be paid to any last minute ABI changes. ...ar, but to do so may require a mass rebuild to remove new symbols from the ABI/API. <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->

...e the actual release, so careful attention must be paid to any last minute ABI changes. ...ar, but to do so may require a mass rebuild to remove new symbols from the ABI/API. <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the

...dering will be alphanumerical based on package name. There are no planned ABI/soname changes that would require logical build ordering. Further, all the